I like any question that involves koalas -- they're apparently so high from eucalyptus that they sometimes fall out of trees and continue to sleep after hitting the ground.

Anyway, the key to this question is to see the difference between what the biologist and politician are stating.

The biologist states that if we continue to lose the forest, we'll lose the koalas. So, ~ F --> ~ K

The politicians, who apparently wants to help, then states that "all that is needed" to save the koalas is to save the forest (to paraphrase). This is not the same thing that the biologist stated. The biologist would probably respond: "Well, you're right that we do need to save the forest to save the Koalas, but there are other factors -- we need folks to stop trapping them to use as guard koalas." The difference is that the politician has made saving the forest sufficient to save the koalas (meaning it's enough to do the job), while the biologist made it necessary (meaning, it's required, but is not definitely enough). So, the politician's statement could be translated to F --> K. This is not a proper inference from what the biologist stated. However, we're not asked to name the error, we're asked to find a situation that does not violate the biologists claim, but does violate the politicians.

(B) does just that. If the forest survives, according to the politician, the koalas should as well. However, the biologist didn't rule out that possibility. He or she simply stated that saving the forest is a necessary component in saving the fuzzy beast, but not something that will ensure the koala's survival.

(A) is tempting, as it has the right pieces and seems to "fit" what folks are saying. However it doesn't violate either the politician's or the biologist's statement. Both would agree that if we lose the forest, we lose the koala.(C) is incorrect because both people would agree that this is possible (though the politician, unlike the biologist, would think that the koala must survive in this scenario).(D) may seem out of scope since it involves slowing the pace, but that does match up with the statements since they focus on whether deforestation will continue "at it's present pace." The problem with (D) is that, like (C), both people would agree that this is possible, again with the politician thinking it's required.(E) would be a better answer if it did not include "approach extinction." Approaching extinction is not the same as becoming extinct. We could interpret that phrase to mean that the koala does not become extinct, making it similar to (D).

Atlas LSAT Teacher wrote:I like any question that involves koalas -- they're apparently so high from eucalyptus that they sometimes fall out of trees and continue to sleep after hitting the ground.

Anyway, the key to this question is to see the difference between what the biologist and politician are stating.

The biologist states that if we continue to lose the forest, we'll lose the koalas. So, ~ F --> ~ K

The politicians, who apparently wants to help, then states that "all that is needed" to save the koalas is to save the forest (to paraphrase). This is not the same thing that the biologist stated. The biologist would probably respond: "Well, you're right that we do need to save the forest to save the Koalas, but there are other factors -- we need folks to stop trapping them to use as guard koalas." The difference is that the politician has made saving the forest sufficient to save the koalas (meaning it's enough to do the job), while the biologist made it necessary (meaning, it's required, but is not definitely enough). So, the politician's statement could be translated to F --> K. This is not a proper inference from what the biologist stated. However, we're not asked to name the error, we're asked to find a situation that does not violate the biologists claim, but does violate the politicians.

(B) does just that. If the forest survives, according to the politician, the koalas should as well. However, the biologist didn't rule out that possibility. He or she simply stated that saving the forest is a necessary component in saving the fuzzy beast, but not something that will ensure the koala's survival.

(A) is tempting, as it has the right pieces and seems to "fit" what folks are saying. However it doesn't violate either the politician's or the biologist's statement. Both would agree that if we lose the forest, we lose the koala.(C) is incorrect because both people would agree that this is possible (though the politician, unlike the biologist, would think that the koala must survive in this scenario).(D) may seem out of scope since it involves slowing the pace, but that does match up with the statements since they focus on whether deforestation will continue "at it's present pace." The problem with (D) is that, like (C), both people would agree that this is possible, again with the politician thinking it's required.(E) would be a better answer if it did not include "approach extinction." Approaching extinction is not the same as becoming extinct. We could interpret that phrase to mean that the koala does not become extinct, making it similar to (D).